Developing nations that have capital and resources (China and India) have the option of skipping "legacy" tech in favor of newer forms of power to leap frog into become giants.. (they don't have any legacy infrastructure or group that are fighting to keep "old tech" so they can go directly to newer/better forms.. If you are starting from scratch, technically speaking with the exception of nuclear (only because the materials used are expensive), they are all relatively the same cost. Solar/Wind/Hydro don't scale as fast/easy as some others.. but they can be cheaper to implement and you can build "micro grids" rather than larger grids.. (with many micro-grids its easy to tie a macro grid on top later).

A lot of economists are banking on China, India and other large developing nations will other tech simply because it doesn't help their long term goals and puts them into the SAME problem the US and others have with Coal/Oil/Gas.. namely legacy tech that now is in competition of newer tech.. (its like buying motorcycle because you are single, but knowing you are dating someone (and will eventually need car, then a larger car).. The Motor cycle is slightly cheaper than the larger car, but if you are smart (knowing the sort of person you are dating) will save a little longer and get the larger car (saving a lot of money in the long term for some short term pain)

China's building coal plants because the tech is practically public domain, and its cheap.

But as they get experience on rolling out nuclear power plants (the work being done in the UK is pretty much a test), coal is dropping out. China wants to be a super power.. and you do that one of three ways:

Beat the hell out of them (i.e.: military)Beat them economically (they are doing a marvelous job of that already)Beat them technologically (hence why they are ramping up so fast)

Coal production helps items 1 and 2.. but won't help 3, and is causing more pushback on 2.. so other forms of power (Nuclear as an example) give them the holy grail of 1, 2, and 3.

Lets remember, China like the US has some major geographical advantages (lots of USABLE land).. and unlike the US, its a communistic tightly controlled group, so if it wants X done, it will make X happen.. no talk, discussions, public debate, etc... Next best thing to a dictatorship, except more hands on the wheel. It has lots of usable materials (coal, oil, natural gas, wind, water, etc...).

Given that trump WANTS to kill them, couple that with the increased lobbying of the coal groups, and DT's insistence on cheap/easy solutions to putting people back to work means, yes its going to grow. The government is paying for alternative fuels because in a capitalistic nation, everything is always up for what gives the most profit for the least expense. Coal (and oil) have been around for a VERY long time.. so the manufacture/processing is relatively cheap. "new" energy forms are more expensive by comparison because its new.. (like all technology, costs will drop over time IF you jump in and keep moving forward).

Its like dating new girl/boy A but you keep looking back at your crazy ex (of 10 years).. Yes, things were easier (in some ways) and you have a history there.. but you broke up for a reason.. and the constant looking back does nothing more than holding "new" to an unrealistic comparison to "old" when in fact, new has its own merits and benefits. Anyone can tell you that doing that means you are ultimately doomed to repeating the EXACT same mistakes because of a misguided notion of nostalgia rather than accepting the new and figuring out if she/he is best for you.

The argument against that, nothing was really revealed in the emails.. having read most of them that wikileaks put out.. it ALLUDES to many things.. but none of them have proven a cause for legal action. and also if there any truth in much of this, the feds would have been all over it (not to mention the media which loves a juicy story). Yes,about the only damning thing in it references to the fact that the DNC wanted Hillary to win so they favored her over Sanders, which is wrong (its supposed to be a free for all and the best/most popular candidate win)

This is akin to a couple (not married to each other) whispering in hushed tones.. we don't know what they are talking about specifically, but we do hear snippets (words really) and the words SOUND incriminating.. but in reality the conversation could be banal.. but we take from it what we want to believe.. and many people want to believe that if they smell smoke, there is a 4 alarm fire when in fact it could be your neighbors cooking (ie: nothing at all).

Be that as it may,CA would do what all other countries in the same boat do.. IMPORT what it lacks.. (like it already does).. it already pays fees to other countries.. again the main difference is as an independent country, it has a LOT more freedom to choose where to import/export to at rates that may be more favorable to it.

Lets see.. California takes relatively little in federate aid (https://ballotpedia.org/California_state_budget_and_finances), returns more to the federal government (https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700), and tries to insure ALL its citizens have at least a safety net. And given that most of the "poor" states are republican (the notable exception being Texas).. Texas, CA and NY could leave the US would tank.

California's federal aid goes towards programs required by the feds, but as those programs would end (or be selectively implemented if desired), their budgetary requirements would shift. And as an independent nation, it would be free to seek other interests and partnerships with other countries to make up that shortfall. In short, its not impossible for it to depart. it would take some planning and sacrifice in the near term, but definitely possible.

But that's just it.. the Media never called him on his shit. He was the clown, the "verbal kent" in our game of "usual suspects" in that no one suspected him because he's "too stupid to be a threat".. so ever fumble, outlandish, crazy, lie he's ever told was just laughed at as "he's just trump and no one is going to seriously believe him" . But they underestimated the masses in that they wanted someone that was not "part of the establishment" (which his actions proved) and they wanted someone that would put america front and center (and they won't understand what tiger they have unleashed until its too late). The "establishment" they (the media) know the lines they can cross so when they cross them they called them on their shit 100% (like smacking an adult for saying foolish that you let slide with a 2 year old), never realizing that the baby in diapers telling the stories was a Baby Herman, not a Baby Huey.

Its not any ONE thing.. It it was ONE thing, it would alienate ONE segment.. but the reality is its multiple things..

She's a woman, that's going to energize one segement but alienate another one (I've heard publically many people say they don't trust A woman (not Hillary) to lead the country because they feel A woman stand up to the other world leaders).

Facebook - Yes, its true, facebook doesn't do any filtering, so fake/false/slanderous stories masquarading as "true" are going to alienate many people (in particular those that get their news FROM facebook, which is a large segment of the population these days)

Because she's going to be Obama Lite 2.0 - Yes again, a large segment of the population don't want another 4+ years of Obama... He's done good for a lot of people, but in their opinion "Not fast enough" and it "hasn't helped ME any".. When in fact in a country of 324,118,787 (based on 2016 data) people, you are NEVER going to help EVERYONE.. (everyone, just think about 4 people close to you, they all need your help (sometimes in conflicting ways).. you won't be able to help them all.. you can help solve SOME problems.. but others you may not be because its going to hurt others. Now add in the fact that you have ACTIVE forces preventing you from doing some actions that COULD help (not saying they WILL, but they COULD), and you have former and current legal obligations to others that again, may conflict with your goals. How successful are you.. Now, lets scale that up about 81,000,000 times.. and just see how far you get. Governments (and its impacts are NEVER felt immediately but over years.. especially in a democratic republic.. in a dictatorship you can do whatever you want and its impact (domestically) maybe felt in weeks to months.. but in the US, years to decades.. its like steering a cruise ship... turning on a dime will collapse you, but if you want to turn, your starting that turn 20 - 30 miles out and slowing down so you can resume "normal" speed at the end. A lot of people don't get that.

All of these things COMBINED = the voting public didn't like her.. for a lot of assumed issues, but also some that she actually has..

Its not a matter of "control" but getting the truth out there.. so much of what he said was pretty slanderous (blantent lies) and would under any normal circumstances (including him) be actionable in the court of law.. but no one did that.. and rather than keep FAKE news out, it was a matter of, let the disinformation flow.

If I started a campaign against you and lied (literally) at every turn, you would be firing up your axe and had your lawyers on speed dial. If I called out your flaws (not a lie, but kept calling out the actual flaws in you as a candidate) then that would be a different thing.

Virtually every fact-checking site has shown that 98% of what he uttered was a lie (most medium, quite a lot large, and some small), which is being regurgitated as "news". And Facebook (the "news" site it is (even though they keep claiming they are not) is doing nothing to stem the tide. And I say this not just for campaigns but also in general.. (my wife gets more scams and just false stories about so many things that even a single check the link shows its all false.. BUT.. most people don't).

But see, that's just it.. the US has LOTS of manufacturing plants.. most are just automated so you don't need nearly as many people.. heck, what used take 200 - 300 men, now takes 10 - 20. (and there are some jobs that can be done by 1 - 2).. so some is moved offshore, but a lot are still in the US, but just need less people.. (it doesn't help either way).. but this vilification of "foreigners" for "taking their jobs" is just wrong. And most of the "educational" requirements are really an attempt at weeding through people. (anyone CAN learn things, especially repetitive tasks).. Doctors, lawyers, Engineering, Chemists, etc.. these are all areas that depend highly on a wealth of backend knowledge before you can really start... most jobs do not require any of that and what they do require is unique enough to them that guess what, you get training AT the job. so I agree, this "everyone MUST go to college" really doesn't make sense. If there are basic society skills everyone should have, then make the first year or two free (no different with public schools that try to set a baseline for the population)

No easy answers but we know a lot of factors:

Companies chase profits (to make shareholders happy).. Shareholders want continued growth (something only sustained by the constant churn of goods produced AND someone to purchase said goods). As more players enter the SAME market (ex: we don't have one car maker, we have 30.. and each car maker has 20 - 30 types being sold + used + alternatives that don't require a car at all) you can't charge X anymore, you have charge X - Y% less.. but again, share holders want to see profits.. so you have to cut costs.. (labour is most often the largest cost of doing any business).. so you start with looking for cheaper labour (ie: outsourcing).. but that gets costly (time to train, possible language issues, government regulations, etc..).. and you are STILL being squeezed.. you then you automate.. (profits rise).. but more items to defend against (lawsuits, R&D, etc.. because those other 30 makers (for cars) are not sitting on their ass. so expenses rise.. which means more cuts.. and lets not forget the most basic of things.. Greed.. (something capitalism is founded upon). The CEO and others want MORE (influence, money, prestige, etc..). all of which reduce the coffers.. so again, you squeeze down below.

That's never going to go away unless EVERYONE involved has a different litmus test for success and a different motive (other than wealth) to achieve it.

At the end of the day, you only need some water (free), food (you can hunt right?) and a place to sleep that won't kill you while you are doing it.. (I know some good caves in NY).. outside of that, everything else is pure "want"

Protectionism works up to a point.. unemployment is low there, but the costs of living are quite high.. and salaries do not match.. + you have things that the US doesn't want to implement.. such as national healthcare.. And lets also remember, a lot of ideas don't scale very well when you just have more people (with more ideas, many of them wrong) and more land (so people on the fringe can either remain such or just become invisible because they are not in the nexus anymore) Japan is really one country.. (ONE country, many prefectures and regions and each with their own identities, histories, etc...), but FAR less fractured than the US).. each state in the US likes to believe its "quasi-independant" and will acquiesce (reluctantly) on federal rules when it suits them. So that create a LOT Of friction and needless redundancy of costs/expenses.. States themselves compete heavily for business to move/relocate, etc.. (come on, Texas is always "well, we will secede from the US because we don't like X" . California is considering it.. NY is toying with it. Concepts like that are virtually unheard of outside of the US because its just not possible.. the closest approximation is the EU and everyone is rushing to take it apart as well because "we don't like "THEM" telling "US" what to do.

A the end of the day, EVERY company has to make plans based on worst case scenarios and what is likely.. we all saw for the past YEAR who he is.. and what he says and would like to do.. Only a fool waits until the water is at his waist to say "maybe I should abandon ship".

Actually for my companies (I own several) this was planned as contingency (in case he won).. and we are now just executing it (we will take our 30K jobs and put them in other countries).. and I know at least 100 other multinationals that are reevaluating their relationship with the US and deciding if its worth the hassle.. most I can assure you are on the "no its not" camp.

Remember, the ENTIRE US economy (both internally and externally) is based on the BELIEF of stability and growth.. When you remove those.. investments go away FAST. And one thing we know that a Trump presidency is going to being is instability.. growth we will have to wait and see. Most of the APAC groups I know (I'm very close to many investment groups, and other multinationals in APAC and EMEA) are looking at shifting their investments to other countries/regions.. (LATAM is a rapidly growing sector, as is APAC and EMEA and reducing their investments in the US).

Serious global bounder, Professional Services Engineer/Manager, Geek, Pseduo-phychologist (I charge $20 for answers), and "different" by most of my friends. (Why do I keep loosing them? *reloading gun* I have to think about that)